December 2018 - Boost - lists.boost.org

The Master branch is still closed; it will be opened tomorrow
by Marshall Clow 12 Dec '18

12 Dec '18

Thanks for your patience -- The boost release managers

1 0

Fwd: [run-clang-tidy] new replacement overlaps with an existing replacement
by Mateusz Loskot 12 Dec '18

12 Dec '18

(I'm forwarding here my clang-tidy problem I posted to cfe-user mailing list, since it touches Boost library, a highly templated library, and I'm hoping we have experienced clang-tidy users among Boost developers. Considering it a part of Boost library development, I hope it is not off-topic here.) ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Mateusz Loskot <mateusz(a)loskot.net> Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 at 22:14 Subject: [run-clang-tidy] new replacement overlaps with an existing replacement To: <cfe-users(a)lists.llvm.org> Hi, I'm running clang-tidy 7.0 (also tried 5.0) to modernise some aspects of Boost.GIL (https://github.com/boostorg/gil) source code. I've noticed, clang-tidy 7.0 (also 5.0) does not apply fixes for some of modernize-use-* checks, especially modernize-use-using. I run it this way: ``` cd ${BOOST_ROOT}/libs/gil cmake -S . -B _build -DCMAKE_EXPORT_COMPILE_COMMANDS=ON .. run-clang-tidy.py -p=_build -header-filter='boost\/gil\/.*' -checks='-*,modernize-use-using' -fix ``` Then, I see huge number of "The new replacement overlaps with an existing replacement." diagnostics. Below, I copied an extract that hopefully is useful to figure out what is happening and going wrong. Basically, there are two class templates and a bunch of tag types: 1. file_stream_device https://github.com/boostorg/gil/blob/e0288ece9ec50534e7d02166863d6799a5932e… 2. get_write_device with partial specialisations, `enable_if`-ed https://github.com/boostorg/gil/blob/e0288ece9ec50534e7d02166863d6799a5932e… The file_stream_device is specialised for a tag and final get_write_device specialisation is matched. And, clang-tidy tries to substitute this alias in get_write_device typedef detail::file_stream_device< FormatTag > type; not with using type = detail::file_stream_device< FormatTag > ; but with `using type` for each FormatTag-based specialisation ``` New replacement: /mnt/d/boost.wsl/libs/gil/include/boost/gil/io/get_write_device.hpp: 1885:+52:"using type = detail::file_stream_device<bmp_tag>" Existing replacement: /mnt/d/boost.wsl/libs/gil/include/boost/gil/io/get_write_device.hpp: 1885:+52:"using type = detail::file_stream_device<FormatTag>" The new replacement overlaps with an existing replacement. New replacement: /mnt/d/boost.wsl/libs/gil/include/boost/gil/io/get_write_device.hpp: 1885:+52:"using type = detail::file_stream_device<bmp_tag>" Existing replacement: /mnt/d/boost.wsl/libs/gil/include/boost/gil/io/get_write_device.hpp: 1885:+52:"using type = detail::file_stream_device<FormatTag>" The new replacement overlaps with an existing replacement. New replacement: /mnt/d/boost.wsl/libs/gil/include/boost/gil/io/get_write_device.hpp: 1885:+52:"using type = detail::file_stream_device<jpeg_tag>" Existing replacement: /mnt/d/boost.wsl/libs/gil/include/boost/gil/io/get_write_device.hpp: 1885:+52:"using type = detail::file_stream_device<FormatTag>" The new replacement overlaps with an existing replacement. New replacement: /mnt/d/boost.wsl/libs/gil/include/boost/gil/io/get_write_device.hpp: 1885:+52:"using type = detail::file_stream_device<png_tag>" Existing replacement: /mnt/d/boost.wsl/libs/gil/include/boost/gil/io/get_write_device.hpp: 1885:+52:"using type = detail::file_stream_device<FormatTag>" The new replacement overlaps with an existing replacement. New replacement: /mnt/d/boost.wsl/libs/gil/include/boost/gil/io/get_write_device.hpp: 1885:+52:"using type = detail::file_stream_device<png_tag>" Existing replacement: /mnt/d/boost.wsl/libs/gil/include/boost/gil/io/get_write_device.hpp: 1885:+52:"using type = detail::file_stream_device<FormatTag>" The new replacement overlaps with an existing replacement. New replacement: /mnt/d/boost.wsl/libs/gil/include/boost/gil/io/get_write_device.hpp: 1885:+52:"using type = detail::file_stream_device<png_tag>" Existing replacement: /mnt/d/boost.wsl/libs/gil/include/boost/gil/io/get_write_device.hpp: 1885:+52:"using type = detail::file_stream_device<FormatTag>" The new replacement overlaps with an existing replacement. New replacement: /mnt/d/boost.wsl/libs/gil/include/boost/gil/io/get_write_device.hpp: 1885:+52:"using type = detail::file_stream_device<pnm_tag>" Existing replacement: /mnt/d/boost.wsl/libs/gil/include/boost/gil/io/get_write_device.hpp: 1885:+52:"using type = detail::file_stream_device<FormatTag>" The new replacement overlaps with an existing replacement. New replacement: /mnt/d/boost.wsl/libs/gil/include/boost/gil/io/get_write_device.hpp: 1885:+52:"using type = detail::file_stream_device<targa_tag>" Existing replacement: /mnt/d/boost.wsl/libs/gil/include/boost/gil/io/get_write_device.hpp: 1885:+52:"using type = detail::file_stream_device<FormatTag>" The new replacement overlaps with an existing replacement. New replacement: /mnt/d/boost.wsl/libs/gil/include/boost/gil/io/get_write_device.hpp: 1885:+52:"using type = detail::file_stream_device<targa_tag>" Existing replacement: /mnt/d/boost.wsl/libs/gil/include/boost/gil/io/get_write_device.hpp: 1885:+52:"using type = detail::file_stream_device<FormatTag>" The new replacement overlaps with an existing replacement. New replacement: /mnt/d/boost.wsl/libs/gil/include/boost/gil/io/get_write_device.hpp: 1885:+52:"using type = detail::file_stream_device<tiff_tag>" Existing replacement: /mnt/d/boost.wsl/libs/gil/include/boost/gil/io/get_write_device.hpp: 1885:+52:"using type = detail::file_stream_device<FormatTag>" The new replacement overlaps with an existing replacement. New replacement: /mnt/d/boost.wsl/libs/gil/include/boost/gil/io/get_write_device.hpp: 1885:+52:"using type = detail::file_stream_device<tiff_tag>" Existing replacement: /mnt/d/boost.wsl/libs/gil/include/boost/gil/io/get_write_device.hpp: 1885:+52:"using type = detail::file_stream_device<FormatTag>" The new replacement overlaps with an existing replacement. ``` Why clang-tidy tries to re-fix the typedef with new replacement instead of keeping the existing one, the generic one? i.e. using type = detail::file_stream_device<FormatTag> I've tried to prepare a minimal example, but I couldn't reproduce this issue. I observed, that if I manually prepare compile_database.json with single .cpp file that just `#include <boost/gil/io/device.hpp>`, that is the header with definition of the base templates and no definitions with higher level specialisations for format tags are included, then clang-tidy applies the expected fixes without any warnings. Could anyone share any insights about this issue? Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net

1 1

How to install boost core
by Nipun Ramani 12 Dec '18

12 Dec '18

I am very new to boost and I have been wanting to build the library from scratch. I am using CMake with VS2017. I successfully created the project files of boost-core using CMake however I am unable to locate .lib file or .dll file after I run the build in VS2017.

2 1

[Website] Revised $Date$
by Olaf van der Spek 11 Dec '18

11 Dec '18

Hi, I don't think this is what it's supposed to be. > Revised $Date$ https://www.boost.org/development/index.html -- Olaf

1 1

Reminder: 1.69 closes for major changes Wednesday
by Marshall Clow 10 Dec '18

10 Dec '18

Upcoming dates: * 31-Oct: Boost 1.69.0 closed for major code changes * 7-Nov: Boost 1.69.0 closed for beta * 14-Nov: Boost 1.69.0 beta 1 * 5-Dec: Boost 1.69.0 closed for release * 12-Dec: Boost 1.69.0 release -- The Boost Release Team

4 3

Will the boost::asio::streambuf keep in sequency order when ostream write to boost::asio::streambuf multiple time?
by hh h 10 Dec '18

10 Dec '18

Hi, Are there any problems in following statements? The receiver works a few minutes, then got wrong number in header field. std::shared_ptr<boost::asio::streambuf> buffer = std::make_shared<boost::asio::streambuf>(); std::ostream os(buffer.get()); os.write((char *) &sendHeader, sizeof(sendHeader)); os.write((char *) sb.data(), sb.size()); boost::asio::async_write(socket_, *buffer.get(), .....); Thank you. - JHH

2 1

Is the async_read more reliable than async_read_some?
by hh h 09 Dec '18

09 Dec '18

Hi, I have been using asio::async_read with protobuf for some time, it is relative easy to use protobuf function SerializeToOstream to attach a packet header and send the packet header along with to protobuf message, with fixed packet header size and message size in the header, I was able to use async_read. But I have to change to use msgpack which I could not find a way like protobuf to attach a packet header to msgpack message. The only way I could do is to use async_read_some, but I am very concerning the remark in the async_read_some document. Appreciate your comments. "The read operation may not read all of the requested number of bytes. Consider using the async_read function if you need to ensure that the requested amount of data is read before the asynchronous operation completes." Thank you. - JH

3 9

Re: [boost] Can we skip the __boost_check_library__.test ?
by Rene Rivera 07 Dec '18

07 Dec '18

Rerouting to appropriate lists.. On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 6:00 PM Kuhl, Brian via Boost-build < boost-build(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: > Hi Boost builders, > > We currently running the Boost test suite using ./b2 in the status > directory. > > We run nightly on several simulators and real boards using ARM, PowerPC, > Intel processors compiling Boost 1.68 with clang and GCC > > Our test results are being peppered with the occasional failure of > __boost_check_library__ > > I’m pretty sure we don’t care about the results of this test in the > context cross-compiling VxWorks? > Probably not. > What exactly is it testing for? > It checks various requirements and guidelines of the library structure. > And assuming it isn’t relevant, how do we “turn it off”? > Add the "--no-check-libs" per < https://github.com/boostorg/boost/blob/develop/status/Jamfile.v2#L18> (I believe running b2 --help in that dir would have shown you that info also). > The library Jam files don’t have an explicit reference to this that I can > find? > It's added here < https://github.com/boostorg/boost/blob/develop/status/Jamfile.v2#L119>. And it runs this script < https://github.com/boostorg/boost/blob/master/status/boost_check_library.py >. -- -- Rene Rivera -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net

2 1

[release] Boost 1.69.0 Release Candidate 1
by Marshall Clow 07 Dec '18

07 Dec '18

The release candidates for the 1.68.0 release are now available at: <https://dl.bintray.com/boostorg/release/1.69.0/source/> The SHA256 checksums are as follows: af05616f71006f97833e130aad886c96136457511ace4b5496d6566e69cbe0ca boost_1_69_0_rc1.7z 8f32d4617390d1c2d16f26a27ab60d97807b35440d45891fa340fc2648b04406 boost_1_69_0_rc1.tar.bz2 9a2c2819310839ea373f42d69e733c339b4e9a19deab6bfec448281554aa4dbb boost_1_69_0_rc1.tar.gz d074bcbcc0501c4917b965fc890e303ee70d8b01ff5712bae4a6c54f2b6b4e52 boost_1_69_0_rc1.zip As always, the release managers would appreciate it if you download the candidate of your choice and give building it a try. Please report both success and failure, and anything else that is noteworthy. -- The Boost Release Managers

1 1

Executable files in Boost git repostories
by Edward Diener 06 Dec '18

06 Dec '18

We have again run into the situation where files with a Linux executable permission have been committed to various Boost git repositories, with Jim King creating a PR and list of these files in Boost Admin. I have fixed these for the repositories for which I have write access, and created PRs for the other repositories. But this begs the question as to what Boost's stance should be about adding actual executable files to a Boost git repository ? As an example a Linux bash command file was added to a particular repository and I created a PR to remove the executable file permission from the file. But the maintainer of the repository feels this is wrong and the Linux bash file should retain the executable file permissions and that the file should be part of the repository. But of course I am more interested here about the general principal of the matter. Obviously operating system command/batch files are executable files, but should they be so in a repository. Finally should be not have some sort of git hook that somehow eliminates this recurring problem of files with executable permissions being periodically committed to a Boost git repository ? Most all of the files I "fixed" or created PRs for are clearly source files what can not be "executed" in any way. But this happening again is a real problem to have to clean up each time.

9 22